In this experiential assignment, you and your teammates will design and facilitate one week of content for your cohort. In teams of three to four individuals, you will design and facilitate a weeklong student-centred learning experience in order to learn about designing and delivering facilitated learning experiences.
For your week, you will develop expertise in the content that you will facilitate, choose and assign readings or other resources, develop activities for peers, and facilitate their learning.
Your team will have a choice of topics to select from, or can suggest another facilitation-related topic to facilitate. Additionally, your team can use any technology you prefer to deliver your week, or you can use a provided Moodle course shell where you will have full instructional rights.
There are 2 deliverables for this assignment.
- A facilitation plan for your facilitation week.
- One member of your team will post a draft of their plan on their blog by the end of week 3 for me to review and, if need be, comment on possible changes. I will watch Feedly for your blog post and make comments on that blog post if i feel there needs to be revisions.
- The final plan for all facilitation teams is due at the end of week 4. Again, this should be in the form of a blog post on one of your team members blog, and submit the URL to the Moodle 2 assignment dropbox. It does not have to be a completely new blog post. You can simply edit the original draft facilitation plan blog post from week 3 with any changes, republish that post and submit the url.
- Your team will lead a facilitation week, which includes; a week-long learning module that provides ample opportunity for student participation and discussion, and your facilitation of that module.
Value: 25% with the facilitation plan counting for 5% of the mark and the facilitation week 20% of the mark.
Submit: Your final facilitation plan should be a blog post on a team members blog. Please submit the url to the Online text component of the Assignment 2 dropbox in Moodle. There is no submission required by you for the actual facilitation week.
Your facilitation plan should include the following elements:
- The learning objective for the week.
- The learning resource and/or reading you have found and will be using for your facilitation week.
- A brief description of the learning activity you will ask the learners to take part in.
- A brief description of your synchronous session.
- The technologies you will use and why you have chosen them.
- A timeline of the flow of your week.
- How and when you will communicate with your learners during the week.
- How you plan to establish a Teaching, Social, and Cognitive presence within your week.
Facilitation Week Rubric
|Teaching, Cognitive, and Social Presence||All three presences are clearly evident.||All three presences are mostly evident.||2 of the 3 presences are evident, but the third may be missing or not fully developed.||Little evidence or development of the three presences|
|Communication||Objectives, guidelines, norms, and expectations were clear and evident.
Communication between instructor and students was clear, concise and timely.
Facilitator follow-up questions consistently resulted in learners engaging with topic more deeply.
|Objectives, guidelines, norms, and expectations were mostly clear and evident.
Communication between instructor and students was consistently clear, concise and timely.
Facilitator provided some follow-up questions that prompted deeper understanding of content matter.
|Objectives, guidelines, norms, and expectations were mostly clear and evident. There may be some confusion with some learners that required clarification.
Communication between instructor and students was mostly clear, concise and/or timely.
Follow-up questions occasionally spurred some learners to engage more deeply with topic.
|Missing or unclear objectives, guidelines, norms and expectations.
Communication with learners was late or not visible.
No follow-up questions to prompt deeper thinking occurred.
|Alignment with facilitation plan||Unexpected and significant issues occurred during the week that disrupted the plan, yet facilitators were able to improvise and provide a meaningful facilitation week that met the stated learning objectives.||The week proceed in alignment with facilitation plan.||The week proceed in alignment with facilitation plan, with minor alterations that were clearly communicated to learners.||Significant deviations from the submitted plan occurred with little or no rationale.|
|Technology use||Technology choice redefined the learning experience and enabled activities and interactions that would not have been possible without it.||Technology choice greatly enhanced the learning experience and the types of interactions and/or activities that occurred.||Technology choice adequately supported activities and interactions.||Technology choice was superfluous and/or failed to support activities and interactions to such an extent that the technology became a barrier.|
|Readings & Resources||Readings & resources were of exceptional quality, and were at an appropriate level for the topic and audience. Readings were crucial to learning activity and/or discussions.||Readings & resources are of good quality and at an appropriate level for the audience. Learners and facilitators often referred back to readings/resources during learning activities and/or discussions.||Readings & resources are of good quality and at an appropriate level for the audience. Readings were occasionally referenced in learning activity and/or discussions.||Readings & resources are of poor quality and/or not at an appropriate level for the audience, or were seldom or infrequently referred back to in learning activity and/or discussions.|
|Activities||Activity(ies) provided learners the opportunity to transform the way they think about the topic through deep and rich social interactions and the development of significant learning artifacts.
Activity(ies) are in exceptional alignment with stated learning objective.
Activity(ies) develops all CoI presences
|Activity(ies) provided rich opportunity for learners to engage with topic through interactions and/or the development of learning artifacts.
Activity(ies) show solid alignment with learning objective.
Activit(ies) develops multiple CoI presences.
|Activity(ies) provided adequate opportunity for learners to engage with topic through interactions and/or the development of artifacts.
Activity(ies) are mostly aligned with learning objective.
Activit(ies) develops at least one of the CoI presences.
|Too many activity(ies) are attempted, or activity(ies) provided few opportunities for learners to engage with the topic through interactions and/or the development of learning artifacts.
Activity(ies) are not aligned with learning objective.
Activity(ies) fails to develop at least one of the CoI presences.
|Technology||Appropriate technology that supports activities is identified, including exceptional pedagogical rationale for the choice, and a support plan for learners.||Appropriate technology that supports activities is identified and/or includes a plan to support learners and/or includes good pedagogical rationale for technology decision.||Appropriate technology that supports activities is identified.||No technology is identified.|
|Pacing||Week is exceptionally well paced and provides plenty of time for learners to engage with content and activities.||Week is well paced and provides adequate time for learners to engage with content and activities.||Week is mostly well paced, but may have moments where learners feel rushed or unable to deeply engage with content or activities.||Week is poorly paced, with learners feeling overwhelmed and/or disengaged with too may or too few activities.|
|Learning Objectives||Learning objective is clear, specific and measurable.||Learning objective is clear and specific.||Learning objective is mostly clear and specific.||No learning objective defined|